What pisses me off is people keep consuming products that have proven to be harmful and cancer-causing. So when they get lung cancer from smoking, it somehow falls on the animal to find a cure for a human's deliberate self-destruction. Want to stop lung cancer? Stop smokin that shit. Maybe it will stop being carried to offspring who didn't ask to inherit the problem either. There are ways for us to slow it down at least. But as people, we're a lazy race who will always take the easy way out.
For all these pro animal testing freaks, my grandmother had two cancerous tumors in her brain. Even through her pain, she said she would not have an animal die for her life. She lived but she is strongly against animal useage for medical purposes. Human lives are more precious? That shows how evil this society has become...in fact, humans are the very bringer of evil.
animal models are very possible and very necessary...this guy is just making an emotional appeal. yes, it sucks that animals have to be killed, but honestly would anyone choose to have their child die in order to save a room full of rats??
maybe it's an emotional appeal, but it's also logical...regardless of what you want to call it, would you choose an animal over your own baby? the flaws of animal testing are not "obvious"...if they had no value do you think people would be doing them just for the fun it?
@FluffyFeralMarmot Well, they now have artificial skin, they have the money to use computer programs, etc. There are madical compaines that DON'T test in animals, like Avon Breast Cancer Research and the Children's Burn thingy. Those companies recieve billions of dollars, and guess what? Cruelty free!!! And SAFE. Science HAS imroved, just not the laws or for people who should be educated about it.
@FluffyFeralMarmot There are people that love meke suffer animals. There are video that show scientist that smile and laugh when monekey scream in pain. People is capable of unimaginable horror, be a reasercher don't guarantee to be good or fair person. Your question... i could ask you: would choose a serial killer over your baby? Over you cat? Your question is demagogic.
@Lunastorta I'm sure there are farmers, ranchers, and people that work in slaughterhouses that are sadists too. These animals die for our benefit not just some sick pleasure.
Life destroys life in order to live. Everything you eat had to die. The tree that was cut down to make your desk housed tens of thousands of animals. The electricity that powers your computer comes at the expense of clearcut mountaintops for coal. If you can't get past this fact then you are going to have a sad life.
"animal over your own baby" (Sic!) Do you vivisectionists ever come up with anything original? Thats just like "babies or dogs" from the vivisectionists of the 1970s, pointed out by Hans Ruesch's Slaughter of the Innocent.
That line is designed to try to throw me off the history behind vivisection and that both babies and dogs have been used (and that none of it was any use either).
And yes the flaws are obvious (if you get off your arse and compare the history logs)
@ShroedingerWatcher Which part is spelled incorrectly? In any case, that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Learn how to use an apostrophe before you start slinging mud.
I wouldn't say I'm a "vivisectionist"; we don't do vivisections at my work. As far as I know we just chop their heads off and do tissue necropsies. I have no desire to study the history of vivisection. People that do it secretly get off on the images of death and torture. But whatever floats your boat...
@FluffyFeralMarmot "Sic" means you have used a phrase that has been said before.
"vivisectionist" someone that defends vivisection without actually being a vivisector/animal researcher.
But you say in your way you are not yet you also say you are because you "chop off" the heads and study the tissues.
Not everyone falls for the "cruelty to animals" con, vivisection is just a prelude to human testing. And the same mentality of animal vivisection is why there was those Nazi experiments on Jews
@FluffyFeralMarmot "change it"? The way people live has already been changed, so many times, so many ways, but its always based on eating, experimenting, destroying life.
And the world is not "cruel", but humans are, and not by nature, but by your cultures.
@FluffyFeralMarmot "I have no desire to study the history..." So why defend an old practice that you know nothing about?
"images of death and torture" So you are saying either of these never happens? Silly. But again it is not just a "cruelty" issue, there is the danger to humans.
Diseases artificially induced in animals have nothing to do with the naturally occurring versions?!?! What is this guy on.
So when we learnt about the benefits of penicillin from testing on mice we gave them an infection - we induced this situation - it was identical to the naturally occurring type. We discovered the full benefits of penicillin (only after 10 years of it sitting on a shelf doing nothing after Fleming's initial discovery).
With that so-called benefit of penicillin there is actually a burden. Do you not recall the old stories about antibiotics weakening humans? Esp the 40's. One could say they just over prescribed it. But why would they do that if they knew it had "benefits" and knew how it worked from animals?
Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to try to overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man......
Dec 1970, longest criminal trial in Germanys judicial history - 2 1/2 years, 283 days in court - ended with the acquittal of Chemie Grunethal, after a long line of medical authorities had testified that the generally accepted animal tests could never be conclusive for human beings. Testimonies came from many vivisectors, including the 1945 Nobel laureate biochemist Ernst Boris Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin with Fleming and Florey.
In Le Figaro (Paris, Sept. 18, 1976) titled A Warning from WHO: Penicillin No Longer Cures Gonorrhea. 'WHO's warning is particularly important inasmuch as gonorhea, after a massive withdrawal following World War II, has been staging since 1960 a full comeback. It has become the world's most frequent contagious disease, excepting the influenza epidemics.'
And then they give me a list of drugs that did not kill or maim humans, they claim this is thanks to animal experiments.
How can that possibly be true when the human told us or them how the drug reacted? It is not true, the belief of benefits from animals regardless of the testing types owes no benefits to the use of animals.
And then of course one can give a list of the opposite outcomes.
But the vivisector is a confused one, he/she does not understand so needs educating on their flaws.
When one points out an example of a drug that killed and or maimed a human the vivisectionists just say "There should have been more tests done to avoid this"
I pointed out the flaws in that assumption, one example was when past vivisectors said the same thing, yet again the same thing has happened, more failures, more tragedies...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
animal rights activists have no clue. next time a family member of an animal activist gets ill with a life threatening condition and needs a cure thats been tested on animals...what will they do? scientists should use animals to the fullest. next time they brush there teeth they should think twice about toothpaste cus thats also been tested on animals. advancements in cure and prevention of disease have only been made possible through the use of animal research. people should be more thankful.
This video is excellent! If more people see this it will change their mind about the whole need for animal testing. This practice is out-dated and unreliable as plenty of doctors have found out exactly how useless it is. Thanks for posting this.
one question ive always had is isnt it hypocritical for the people who say "Humans come first and that they want progress" but wouldnt it would be more beneficial to spend the billions of dollars spent on animal testing to instead go to giving third world countries food and clean water?
Oh how naive you are. Scientific achievements acquired by animal testing and money improves the country's economy and personal income for the scientists. On the other hand, charity to Third World countries that are down right poor cannot bring them any income. Why? Because most countries that are having hard time standing up and are supported by the rich, usually are grateful to the doners and pay back. But countries like Nicaragua are going to have hard time doing so.
Do you care about anyone or anything on the planet besides yourself?? You love to support greed and apathy, so if there's anything at all you care about besides material wealth, I'd be interested in hearing it.
"You only get one shot in life, why should you suffer for the fate of others."
And yet, you seem to think it's no problem to torture an animal in its only shot at life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think there's not even anything bad about intentionally torturing a crimeless animal. If I'm wrong to assume this, I am sorry, but this is the impression you've been giving.
To anyone who's looking at this comment, this was said in reference to Holmes' support for Koreans who torture dogs to give it more flavor, not animal testing, but which is worse..
You're not thinking this from the person's perspective. As much as a wild carnivorous animal isn't going to care about him when he's out in the wild and rip him into pieces, why should he sympathize over the animals in his captivity and lose profit?
By this logic, why should I care if you get tortured when it profits me?? Apparently, we are different races, so in the same way that tigers and panthers are free from criticism in your eyes when they go on to maim and kill each other, would you accept this for you and I?? I would love to smash your fucking skull and be free from any criticism. Guess what, we aren't in the wild, and the wilderness(or god, if you believe in those things) is a pervert.
Considering how tigers and panthers are different species, it really doesn't apply. Think of the wild as their society, murder is forbidden, but they kill foreigners - aka humans. Is murder forbidden in our societies? YES, that's exactly why we won't kill each other.
But us killing ANIMALS in our societies is not murder. It is fundamentally an exact reflection of how tigers would attack humans but they won't attack each other.
Those animals are within our societies, so we have every rights to kill animals - as a tiger would have every rights to kill humans when we're in their world.
Then I suppose if there are "Aliens" visiting Earth, it's no problem for them to take us to their UFO and torture us for the rest of our lives. I volunteer you.
I don't believe in UFOs or aliens, so go ahead and tell your imaginary friends to shoot a laser beam down from the sky and torture me to death. Oh, while you're at it, you might want to summon up the lightning clouds, use a magic spell and zap me to a crisp.
But if they were, you wouldn't think there was any issue with them torturing you?? I would find that hard to believe. Just showing that your logic is selective, prejudiced, unethical, evil even, and just plain WRONG. You evil piece of shit.
'nigger attitude'? I'm a humanitarian who doesn't give a rat's ass about stupid animals and I have a 'nigger attitude'? Personally, I find it extremely ironic because the 'niggers' or the black slaves were extremely gentle; while the great white masters were cruel fuckers that treated animals and their slaves with unreasonable violence.
I'll take that nigger attitude and you can have the white biggot attitude. You dumb white kid.
this is so fucked up, you afet watching just a little part of this and watching half of earthlings, I couldnt go on...I am having a little sympathy with the NWO and thos Georgia Guide stones....less people perhaps less evil shit....
Those who do not patronize the fa(s)t-food industry would not concern themselves with those who do; however, when a monkey is caged, confined, and force-fed dangerous drugs to enhance weight loss so that the American consumer can continue to feed his face and sit about the house flipping the remote, then Agribusiness and the vivisectors will hear from animal rights activist.
Typically, non-smokers would not concern themselves with a pregnant woman's free choice to inhale toxic smoke at the peril of her unborn, but when monkeys are being force-fed nicotine, their unborn babies aborted and dissected so that Philip Morris can sell its lethal drugs to pregnant women, then American big business and the vivisectors will hear from the animal rights activists.
The sad thing is, when we care about animals we become vegan and then hope that we are doing our share. Then we shave, we wash dishes, we use condoms, and all of these products have been tested on animals, held captive and made to suffer when they pour dishwashing soap in their eyes, make them eat shaving cream, put latex under their skin to watch for irritation, and unspeakable other acts of torture, bringing a slow death... We all need to get informed and not support any company doing testing!
I totally agree with what your saying. I never used to know that all these products were being tested on animals. We aren't told by anyone & that is the problem. I know alot of people won't listen but the people who do listen can still make a positive impact. I now use animal friendly products only. I don't buy stupid Cover Girl or Listerine or Colgate etc etc... but I used to buy it because I never knew! How can we make more people aware????? I'd like to help in some way.
I hear you, my friend! One resource that I found is the PETA website. On their main page, we can find a heading called "cruelty-free living". I printed some of the lists and carry them with me when I am shopping. I also gave this resource to many of my friends, colleagues, etc. but I agree that it should be made more easily available and more publicize!
What pisses me off is people keep consuming products that have proven to be harmful and cancer-causing. So when they get lung cancer from smoking, it somehow falls on the animal to find a cure for a human's deliberate self-destruction. Want to stop lung cancer? Stop smokin that shit. Maybe it will stop being carried to offspring who didn't ask to inherit the problem either. There are ways for us to slow it down at least. But as people, we're a lazy race who will always take the easy way out.
oliviamariesiragusa 7 months ago
All suppoters of animal testing, there is a place for you in Hell where you will greatly contribute to testing.
peinsama666 1 year ago
@peinsama666 So I'm going to hell because I support research to find cures for diseases? Is it opposite day?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
For all these pro animal testing freaks, my grandmother had two cancerous tumors in her brain. Even through her pain, she said she would not have an animal die for her life. She lived but she is strongly against animal useage for medical purposes. Human lives are more precious? That shows how evil this society has become...in fact, humans are the very bringer of evil.
peinsama666 1 year ago
@peinsama666 So you're grandmother was willing to die. What does that prove?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89
It proves that she was not a selfish person. If it is your time to go then it is your time to go.
peinsama666 1 year ago
animal models are very possible and very necessary...this guy is just making an emotional appeal. yes, it sucks that animals have to be killed, but honestly would anyone choose to have their child die in order to save a room full of rats??
FluffyFeralMarmot 2 years ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot,
I'd say you are making an "emotional appeal" to continue vivisection despite its obvious eternal flaws.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
maybe it's an emotional appeal, but it's also logical...regardless of what you want to call it, would you choose an animal over your own baby? the flaws of animal testing are not "obvious"...if they had no value do you think people would be doing them just for the fun it?
FluffyFeralMarmot 2 years ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot Well, they now have artificial skin, they have the money to use computer programs, etc. There are madical compaines that DON'T test in animals, like Avon Breast Cancer Research and the Children's Burn thingy. Those companies recieve billions of dollars, and guess what? Cruelty free!!! And SAFE. Science HAS imroved, just not the laws or for people who should be educated about it.
yaymejkok4 1 year ago
@yaymejkok4 Computers aren't powerful enough to simulate the hundreds of thousands of tissues proteins cells etc. in an animal.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot There are people that love meke suffer animals. There are video that show scientist that smile and laugh when monekey scream in pain. People is capable of unimaginable horror, be a reasercher don't guarantee to be good or fair person. Your question... i could ask you: would choose a serial killer over your baby? Over you cat? Your question is demagogic.
Lunastorta 1 year ago
@Lunastorta I'm sure there are farmers, ranchers, and people that work in slaughterhouses that are sadists too. These animals die for our benefit not just some sick pleasure.
Life destroys life in order to live. Everything you eat had to die. The tree that was cut down to make your desk housed tens of thousands of animals. The electricity that powers your computer comes at the expense of clearcut mountaintops for coal. If you can't get past this fact then you are going to have a sad life.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot
"animal over your own baby" (Sic!) Do you vivisectionists ever come up with anything original? Thats just like "babies or dogs" from the vivisectionists of the 1970s, pointed out by Hans Ruesch's Slaughter of the Innocent.
That line is designed to try to throw me off the history behind vivisection and that both babies and dogs have been used (and that none of it was any use either).
And yes the flaws are obvious (if you get off your arse and compare the history logs)
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
@ShroedingerWatcher Which part is spelled incorrectly? In any case, that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Learn how to use an apostrophe before you start slinging mud.
I wouldn't say I'm a "vivisectionist"; we don't do vivisections at my work. As far as I know we just chop their heads off and do tissue necropsies. I have no desire to study the history of vivisection. People that do it secretly get off on the images of death and torture. But whatever floats your boat...
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot "Sic" means you have used a phrase that has been said before.
"vivisectionist" someone that defends vivisection without actually being a vivisector/animal researcher.
But you say in your way you are not yet you also say you are because you "chop off" the heads and study the tissues.
Not everyone falls for the "cruelty to animals" con, vivisection is just a prelude to human testing. And the same mentality of animal vivisection is why there was those Nazi experiments on Jews
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
@ShroedingerWatcher Yep, it's a cruel world. Good luck trying to change it.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot "change it"? The way people live has already been changed, so many times, so many ways, but its always based on eating, experimenting, destroying life.
And the world is not "cruel", but humans are, and not by nature, but by your cultures.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
@ShroedingerWatcher Tragic.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot "I have no desire to study the history..." So why defend an old practice that you know nothing about?
"images of death and torture" So you are saying either of these never happens? Silly. But again it is not just a "cruelty" issue, there is the danger to humans.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
the narrarator sounds drunk
jattnyc 2 years ago
Diseases artificially induced in animals have nothing to do with the naturally occurring versions?!?! What is this guy on.
So when we learnt about the benefits of penicillin from testing on mice we gave them an infection - we induced this situation - it was identical to the naturally occurring type. We discovered the full benefits of penicillin (only after 10 years of it sitting on a shelf doing nothing after Fleming's initial discovery).
LondonProphet 2 years ago
@LondonProphet,
No surprise you missed out the rest of the wording.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
@LondonProphet,
With that so-called benefit of penicillin there is actually a burden. Do you not recall the old stories about antibiotics weakening humans? Esp the 40's. One could say they just over prescribed it. But why would they do that if they knew it had "benefits" and knew how it worked from animals?
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to try to overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man......
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
< (Dr Howard Florey, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of penicillin, The Advance of Chemotherapy by Animal Experiments, Conquest, Jan. 1953, p.12)...
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
Dec 1970, longest criminal trial in Germanys judicial history - 2 1/2 years, 283 days in court - ended with the acquittal of Chemie Grunethal, after a long line of medical authorities had testified that the generally accepted animal tests could never be conclusive for human beings. Testimonies came from many vivisectors, including the 1945 Nobel laureate biochemist Ernst Boris Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin with Fleming and Florey.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
In Le Figaro (Paris, Sept. 18, 1976) titled A Warning from WHO: Penicillin No Longer Cures Gonorrhea. 'WHO's warning is particularly important inasmuch as gonorhea, after a massive withdrawal following World War II, has been staging since 1960 a full comeback. It has become the world's most frequent contagious disease, excepting the influenza epidemics.'
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And then they give me a list of drugs that did not kill or maim humans, they claim this is thanks to animal experiments.
How can that possibly be true when the human told us or them how the drug reacted? It is not true, the belief of benefits from animals regardless of the testing types owes no benefits to the use of animals.
And then of course one can give a list of the opposite outcomes.
But the vivisector is a confused one, he/she does not understand so needs educating on their flaws.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
When one points out an example of a drug that killed and or maimed a human the vivisectionists just say "There should have been more tests done to avoid this"
I pointed out the flaws in that assumption, one example was when past vivisectors said the same thing, yet again the same thing has happened, more failures, more tragedies...
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
CO-OP does not use any products tested on animals.
bnprenaissance 3 years ago
@bnprenaissance Yes they do.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
animal rights activists have no clue. next time a family member of an animal activist gets ill with a life threatening condition and needs a cure thats been tested on animals...what will they do? scientists should use animals to the fullest. next time they brush there teeth they should think twice about toothpaste cus thats also been tested on animals. advancements in cure and prevention of disease have only been made possible through the use of animal research. people should be more thankful.
moey78612 3 years ago
This video is excellent! If more people see this it will change their mind about the whole need for animal testing. This practice is out-dated and unreliable as plenty of doctors have found out exactly how useless it is. Thanks for posting this.
stephjuhler999 3 years ago
one question ive always had is isnt it hypocritical for the people who say "Humans come first and that they want progress" but wouldnt it would be more beneficial to spend the billions of dollars spent on animal testing to instead go to giving third world countries food and clean water?
batzndiamonds 3 years ago 13
Oh how naive you are. Scientific achievements acquired by animal testing and money improves the country's economy and personal income for the scientists. On the other hand, charity to Third World countries that are down right poor cannot bring them any income. Why? Because most countries that are having hard time standing up and are supported by the rich, usually are grateful to the doners and pay back. But countries like Nicaragua are going to have hard time doing so.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
Do you care about anyone or anything on the planet besides yourself?? You love to support greed and apathy, so if there's anything at all you care about besides material wealth, I'd be interested in hearing it.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
I'm sorry that's how the world goes around and your head's too thick to accept it as truth?
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
My head's too fair to accept it as reasonable.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
It is reasonable. You only get one shot in life, why should you suffer for the fate of others.
And don't look at me, I'm not using animals as test subjects. That's how THEY roll not me, I was just explaining to "batzndiamonds" what's obvious.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
"You only get one shot in life, why should you suffer for the fate of others."
And yet, you seem to think it's no problem to torture an animal in its only shot at life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think there's not even anything bad about intentionally torturing a crimeless animal. If I'm wrong to assume this, I am sorry, but this is the impression you've been giving.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
To anyone who's looking at this comment, this was said in reference to Holmes' support for Koreans who torture dogs to give it more flavor, not animal testing, but which is worse..
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
You're not thinking this from the person's perspective. As much as a wild carnivorous animal isn't going to care about him when he's out in the wild and rip him into pieces, why should he sympathize over the animals in his captivity and lose profit?
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
By this logic, why should I care if you get tortured when it profits me?? Apparently, we are different races, so in the same way that tigers and panthers are free from criticism in your eyes when they go on to maim and kill each other, would you accept this for you and I?? I would love to smash your fucking skull and be free from any criticism. Guess what, we aren't in the wild, and the wilderness(or god, if you believe in those things) is a pervert.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
Considering how tigers and panthers are different species, it really doesn't apply. Think of the wild as their society, murder is forbidden, but they kill foreigners - aka humans. Is murder forbidden in our societies? YES, that's exactly why we won't kill each other.
But us killing ANIMALS in our societies is not murder. It is fundamentally an exact reflection of how tigers would attack humans but they won't attack each other.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
Those animals are within our societies, so we have every rights to kill animals - as a tiger would have every rights to kill humans when we're in their world.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
Then I suppose if there are "Aliens" visiting Earth, it's no problem for them to take us to their UFO and torture us for the rest of our lives. I volunteer you.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago 3
I don't believe in UFOs or aliens, so go ahead and tell your imaginary friends to shoot a laser beam down from the sky and torture me to death. Oh, while you're at it, you might want to summon up the lightning clouds, use a magic spell and zap me to a crisp.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
But if they were, you wouldn't think there was any issue with them torturing you?? I would find that hard to believe. Just showing that your logic is selective, prejudiced, unethical, evil even, and just plain WRONG. You evil piece of shit.
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago 3
I'm using selective, prejudice, unethical, evil and wrong logic because I'm telling it like it is?
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
Comment removed
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago 2
You are trying to enforce care for others, but you're a racist? Ironic much?
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
Comment removed
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago
'nigger attitude'? I'm a humanitarian who doesn't give a rat's ass about stupid animals and I have a 'nigger attitude'? Personally, I find it extremely ironic because the 'niggers' or the black slaves were extremely gentle; while the great white masters were cruel fuckers that treated animals and their slaves with unreasonable violence.
I'll take that nigger attitude and you can have the white biggot attitude. You dumb white kid.
DetectiveHolmes 3 years ago
this is so fucked up, you afet watching just a little part of this and watching half of earthlings, I couldnt go on...I am having a little sympathy with the NWO and thos Georgia Guide stones....less people perhaps less evil shit....
lumpfish99 3 years ago
Those who do not patronize the fa(s)t-food industry would not concern themselves with those who do; however, when a monkey is caged, confined, and force-fed dangerous drugs to enhance weight loss so that the American consumer can continue to feed his face and sit about the house flipping the remote, then Agribusiness and the vivisectors will hear from animal rights activist.
CDLver 3 years ago 3
Typically, non-smokers would not concern themselves with a pregnant woman's free choice to inhale toxic smoke at the peril of her unborn, but when monkeys are being force-fed nicotine, their unborn babies aborted and dissected so that Philip Morris can sell its lethal drugs to pregnant women, then American big business and the vivisectors will hear from the animal rights activists.
CDLver 3 years ago
The sad thing is, when we care about animals we become vegan and then hope that we are doing our share. Then we shave, we wash dishes, we use condoms, and all of these products have been tested on animals, held captive and made to suffer when they pour dishwashing soap in their eyes, make them eat shaving cream, put latex under their skin to watch for irritation, and unspeakable other acts of torture, bringing a slow death... We all need to get informed and not support any company doing testing!
lovetoallanimals 3 years ago 10
I totally agree with what your saying. I never used to know that all these products were being tested on animals. We aren't told by anyone & that is the problem. I know alot of people won't listen but the people who do listen can still make a positive impact. I now use animal friendly products only. I don't buy stupid Cover Girl or Listerine or Colgate etc etc... but I used to buy it because I never knew! How can we make more people aware????? I'd like to help in some way.
heathjd 3 years ago 3
I hear you, my friend! One resource that I found is the PETA website. On their main page, we can find a heading called "cruelty-free living". I printed some of the lists and carry them with me when I am shopping. I also gave this resource to many of my friends, colleagues, etc. but I agree that it should be made more easily available and more publicize!
lovetoallanimals 3 years ago
@lovetoallanimals most vegans are also against animal testing on everyday products..
bubbly221 1 year ago
Spread this video to your contacts. This is the truth.
fishmarc 3 years ago 4
More people need to see this..
SleepySkeptic 3 years ago 4